TobyOrNotToBe 0 Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 Vote nowYESnoHELL YES Link to post Share on other sites
lifelessimp 0 Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 In before poll, yo.+1(no) Link to post Share on other sites
Socko669 0 Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 NO. And a hardy no at that.People should only be banned if they are utterly worthless.Like me. :twisted: Link to post Share on other sites
Spademan 94 Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 NO. And a hardy no at that.People should only be banned if they are utterly worthless.Like me. :twisted:And me too.I gave this tard two chances, seeing as how he had a Bard reference.Yet, he comes with this tardism.So... very... cute. Link to post Share on other sites
urza75 0 Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 No we shouldn't ban him, he adds something to the forum that makes it interesting, like Royal, Ron and many others, would you have all them banned just because they bring colour to a forum..Or are we just banning people you don't like? Link to post Share on other sites
Spademan 94 Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 No we shouldn't ban him, he adds something to the forum that makes it interesting, like Royal, Ron and many others, would you have all them banned just because they bring colour to a forum..Or are we just banning people you don't like?Appreciate that.I want to be banned though.Pretty sure we are heading that direction anyway with the "admin" responses.Better sooner than later. Link to post Share on other sites
urza75 0 Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 No we shouldn't ban him, he adds something to the forum that makes it interesting, like Royal, Ron and many others, would you have all them banned just because they bring colour to a forum..Or are we just banning people you don't like?Appreciate that.I want to be banned though.Pretty sure we are heading that direction anyway with the "admin" responses.Better sooner than later.Well if you wana get banned, good luck in that.As for flaming etc, isn't that part of a forum (i know it happens on all the ones im in) and most of this seems to happen in general which is the place that it should be excepted in. Its only out of hand if it goes in to all the strat forums etc which as far as i know it hasn't, as for losing a member with over 1000 posts just because someone with 50 starts to kick off is unfair. As for admin, yes i understand that sometimes they must step in if it gets out of hand and ban people who do flame for no other reason than to flame, but people do have a choice, they have a choice to start a thread that they know is a bit dumb and people have a choice to read, If admin do step in to take total control we have no freedom of speech. As i understand it for the most part member police themselves with admin only stepping in if they must but if they decide to take it upon themselves to ban at will just because someone decides to speak his mind no matter how stupid it may seem at the time. People like Ron, Spademan and Royal plus the many others have taken a role in the forum that must be filed, they entertain and i believe for the most part what they say is meant to be taken in jest, just because someone doesn't have a sense of humour doesn't mean we should ban someone. If a forum doesn't have entertainment whats the point in coming back, i know the strat section is good for asking advice but you can do that on any poker forum, this forum has to stand out and people like these keep bring people back. I know i check up on what certain members say just because i find it funny. I believe that if they do ban many members because this forum will lose its "personality" which will lead to a loss of members. i know it might get out of hands at times (Ron/Royal) but a slap on the hand rather than banning would be better, such as in the case of teneight.Just what i think. Link to post Share on other sites
RhinestoneCowboy 2 Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 no....your feet smell Link to post Share on other sites
Allie 0 Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 should flaming loudmouths like spademan be banned ? No, dummies who start threads about banning other people should be banned. If you got a prob with someone, pm admin about it. Starting a thread about banning them is....loudmouth attention seeking behavior!!! Link to post Share on other sites
Stylin_Fish 0 Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 Ban the fuckers who make stupid shit threads like this. Link to post Share on other sites
Frisco d’Anconia 0 Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 Spademan's one of our sharpest poster, Why would we ban him?He and I don’t get-alone, and I still say that. Link to post Share on other sites
Stylin_Fish 0 Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 Spademan's one of our sharpest poster, Why would we ban him?He and I don’t get-alone, and I still say that.You and Spademen never get alone time? I'm sorry to hear that. Link to post Share on other sites
Frisco d’Anconia 0 Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 Spademan's one of our sharpest poster, Why would we ban him?He and I don’t get-alone, and I still say that.You and Spademen never get alone time? I'm sorry to hear that. We flamed in the Black People thread. Link to post Share on other sites
Frisco d’Anconia 0 Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 He’s sense become one of my favorite posters. Link to post Share on other sites
BilliardsBoy 0 Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 FREEDOM OF SPEECH!Anyway, I also think he's pretty funny. The only negative posts that people make that bother me are poker strategy ones, because there seems to be a total lack of ability on this forum to say how to play something without shredding another player.Even then tho, it is the posters right to say what he wants. I agree that some censorship needs to happen here (we don't want ignorant comments about race or anything to overwhelm the site), but for the most part Spade's posts are totally benign.I wouldn't even ban the people on this forum that I don't like, Smash included. Link to post Share on other sites
Frisco d’Anconia 0 Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 FREEDOM OF SPEECH!Freedom-of-Speech doesn't apply to private establishments. Would you like the government to come in and force DN to let people flame on his site? Link to post Share on other sites
urza75 0 Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 FREEDOM OF SPEECH!Freedom-of-Speech doesn't apply to private establishments. Would you like the government to come in and force DN to let people flame on his site?Ok maybe freedom of Speech was taking it a little too far, but im sure you understand what i meant, we should be free to say what we want within reason. Link to post Share on other sites
Frisco d’Anconia 0 Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 FREEDOM OF SPEECH!Freedom-of-Speech doesn't apply to private establishments. Would you like the government to come in and force DN to let people flame on his site?Ok maybe freedom of Speech was taking it a little too far, but im sure you understand what i meant, we should be free to say what we want within reason.We have no legal right to in this forum, but I’m sure DN knows that no one would come here if it sucked. Link to post Share on other sites
BilliardsBoy 0 Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 FREEDOM OF SPEECH!Freedom-of-Speech doesn't apply to private establishments. Would you like the government to come in and force DN to let people flame on his site?I have no clue what you are talking about. I made a light hearted reference to a value that us Americans hold very close to our souls. I have no idea what this has to do with the government or private establishments. Link to post Share on other sites
Frisco d’Anconia 0 Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 I have no clue what you are talking about. I made a light hearted reference to a value that us Americans hold very close to our souls. I have no idea what this has to do with the government or private establishments.Only two things can regulate free speech: Government, or Private jurisdiction.America enjoys the former.If the latter were enforced, it would be called “Socialism”. Voluntary free speech in a privet organization is not what Americans value. Link to post Share on other sites
BilliardsBoy 0 Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 should flaming loudmouths like spademan be banned ?In a post like this, with the current direction this thread is going in, your comments seem totally out of place. I understand you are trying to make an inteligent point about your take on freedom of speech being taken away from Americans by certain institutions, but lighten up man, LoL.My comment was meant to reflect my attitude towards people who think that others should be censored in what is essentially a privately run open public conversation about whatever the posters want to talk about. I didn't say jack about the government coming in to force DN to let ppl say what they want.As far as I'm concerned, the OP is voicing his opinion on another poster, but is going a little to far in demanding a vote to get him banned. Link to post Share on other sites
Frisco d’Anconia 0 Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 should flaming loudmouths like spademan be banned ? If you're trying to quote me there, you're off by a mile.I understand you are trying to make an inteligent point about your take on freedom of speech being taken away from Americans by certain institutionsIf you think thats what I meant, you couldn't me more off. Really. Link to post Share on other sites
BilliardsBoy 0 Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 Ok man, your totally right here.I wasn't quoting the title of this thread, I just made that up. (sw)You fly out of left field and make a comment about how FoS doesn't apply in private institutions and "how would you like it if the govt came in and told DN to let ppl say what they want." Way to take a simple ideal, not a demanded enforcement of the constitution, and turn it against me like I'm an idiot or something.I think the only one here who is way off is you with regards to this thread. Took a very simple idea and made it uber-complicated. Please continue to do so. Link to post Share on other sites
Frisco d’Anconia 0 Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 Ok man, your totally right here.I wasn't quoting the title of this thread, I just made that up. (sw)You fly out of left field and make a comment about how FoS doesn't apply in private institutions and "how would you like it if the govt came in and told DN to let ppl say what they want." Way to take a simple ideal, not a demanded enforcement of the constitution, and turn it against me like I'm an idiot or something.I think the only one here who is way off is you with regards to this thread. Took a very simple idea and made it uber-complicated. Please continue to do so.Please don't misquote me.You call “FREEDOM OF SPEECH!”, and I am simply saying that, in this case, you have no right by which to claim it. Link to post Share on other sites
teneight 1 Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 no he shouldn'tteneightI got my avatar back :-) Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now